DIMALUB P. NAMIL, ABDULNASSER TIMAN, TERESITA G.

AKOB, MALIGA AMILUDIN

and EPAS GUIAMEL, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, public respondent.
JOENIME B. KAPINA, MONIB B. WALINGWALING, MAULANA G. KARNAIN,
ABDULGAPHAR M. MUSTAPHA, ABDULRAKMAN TALIKOP and WILSON SABIWANG,
private respondents.

GR No. 150540
October 28, 2003

FACTS:

The Commissioner-in-Charge for Region XII, Mehol K. Sahdain, conducted an investigation on

the matter of having two (2) sets of winning candidates as members of the Sangguniang Bayan
for Palimbang:

- The Petitioners who were proclaimed on May 20, 2001 (COVCP No. 801108), who took
oath and assumed office; and
- The Private respondents who were proclaimed on May 21, 2001 (COCVP No. 8031109)

After investigation and through submitted by the Law Department, the Regional Election
Registrar and the Provincial Supervisor, it was found out that:

- The Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation (COVCP) No. 801108

proclaiming the petitioners as winning candidates is falsified, hence, null and void; and
-
- The COCVP No. 8031109 proclaiming the private respondents as winning candidates is
the authentic certificate.

The Comelec then issued Resolution No. 4615 proclaiming the private respondents as the
winning candidates. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES,

(1) that the proclamation of the winning candidates contained in Certificate of Canvass of Votes
and Proclamation No. 8031109 is a valid proclamation; (2) to adopt the recommendation of the
Law Department which is in accordance with the result of the investigation conducted by the
Commissioner-in-Charge; and herein orders the immediate installation of JOENIME B. KAPINA,
MONIB B. WALINGWALING, MAULANA G. KARNAIN, ABDULGAPHAR M. MUSTAPHA,
MALOD B. MOSADI, ABDULRAKMAN A. TALIKOP, WILSON K. SABIWANG, AND
MABANING P. SAMAMA as the duly elected members of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat.
Petitioners contend that such Resolution is null and void because they were not accorded due
notice and hearing, hence constituting a violation of the due process principle.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Resolution 4615 is null and void.

HELD:
YES, 4615 is null and void.

Thus, although the COMELEC possesses, in appropriate cases, the power to annul or
suspend the proclamation of any candidate, the Court also ruled that the COMELEC is
without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a
proclamation without notice and hearing. Due process in the proceedings before the public
respondent exercising its quasi-judicial functions, requires due notice and hearing, among
others.

In this case, the public respondent nullified the proclamation of the petitioners and
ousted them from their office as members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Palimbang, based
solely on the recommendations of its law department and of Commissioner Sadain, and on the
memoranda of its officers.

Procedural due process demands prior notice and hearing. Then after the hearing, it
is also necessary that the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its ruling. In other
words, due process requires that a party be given an opportunity to adduce his evidence
to support his side of the case and that the evidence should be considered in the
adjudication of the case.

The facts show that COMELEC set aside the proclamation of petitioner without the
benefit of prior notice and hearing and it rendered the questioned order based solely on private
respondent’s allegations. As held in Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC: Petitioner cannot be deprived of
his office without due process of law. Although public office is not property under Section 1 of
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, and one cannot acquire a vested right to public office, it is,
nevertheless, a protected right. Due process in proceedings before the COMELEC, exercising
its quasi-judicial functions, requires due notice and hearing, among others.